I found it interesting that no one introduced themselves/no names were used throughout the film. Only at the end, when everyone parts ways do Jurors 8 & 9 introduce themselves to each other.
The rules for speaking and voting varied through the deliberation. Initially it was an orderly process, but once it was apparent that not everyone was in agreement with the “guilty” verdict, the organizational structure changed.
Although the foreman was for the most part guiding the deliberation, I thought that the true leader was Juror 8. He stood firm against 11 cranky, angry, indifferent, docile, inflexible men and presented his position in a calm and rational way. He used emotion (the fact that an 18 year old teenager was facing the death penalty) to engage and force the jury to ultimately evaluate the case carefully rather than making rushed judgments (which would’ve no doubt happened if Juror 8 hadn’t been a part of the deliberations).
In terms of the jury composition and prejudice, it’s clear throughout the deliberation that socioeconomic backgrounds play a major role in the thought process of each juror. Of course since this is the ’50’s we don’t have the benefit of observing the perspective of a non-white, non-male jury.
